User talk:Skäpperöd

Welcome !

I believe archiving this page is a waste of webspace and not beneficial. You can navigate through earlier posts on this page via the page's history.

Add a new section

I will respond on your talk page.

Page moves

Hi. As you know, the articles dealing with the expulsion of the Germans can be quite contentious. As such, any page move should really be discussed. I don't fault you for being WP:BOLD, but having said that, this is the sort of thing on which I think we would want consensus before moving forward. If you could please join the discussion on the talk page, that would be great. Much thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

POV template

Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

This is in POV template. Do not remove the POV template until dispute is over.--Gwinndeith (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I might have been a bit too rush in some decisions, I suggest third party-neutral-to decide what is wrong and what is right for that article.--Gwinndeith (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging T3

Just a quick reminder: If you tag a template like Template:Pomeranian history for speedy deletion, remember to always(!) put it in <noinclude></noinclude> tags, otherwise it will show up on all transcluded pages, messing up the category for speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 07:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Pomerania

Please reduce the topics within the template to developments prior to 1945, because the current form is too extensive. Pomerania as such is no longer a political entity, and the mixing of German elements with now-Polish ones within one template, particularly one of such massive proportions, is confusing rather than a helfpul navigational tool. As Pomerania no longer exists as such, there is no point in adding the template to towns or locations in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Poland. It would be much more useful, if the topics included in it were related to the historic events in Pomerania only. There are templates, lists and/or categories for towns, lakes, rivers, islands, etc. in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Poland, respectively, so there really isn't any need for more templates of that sort. --Axt (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Silesian topics

Thanks for your help. Since I'm only a noob with a short temper your edits are really instructive. :) Karasek (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Table

Thanks for the work on the table here. Should we add the 1941 changes to it? Also, should we make it into a template? It certainly could be used in Administrative division of Polish territories during World War II, and possibly in some other articles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the subarticles are fine, but indeed there is a problem with overlapping content and structure. PS. I recently created Kattowitz (region). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Intention or false positive?

Hey Skäpperöd, and thanks for pointing out the edit here. Embarrasing as it is, I honestly am not sure why I made that edit... it's clearly not vandalism nor bad sourcing, so the only explanation I can think of is that I accidentally clicked revert when I was patrolling IP recent edits. Never Twinkle before morning coffee is the lesson. All the best, FlyingToaster 12:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia

Please see my comment a the bottom, and the merge proposal on the main page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fed. of Expellees

Hi - I see your point. Thanks for reverting these edits and thanks for explaining your rationale in my talk page. The Nazi resettlement of Germans during WW2 is itself an interesting topic, maybe worth an article of itself. As you probably know, the "evacuation" looked differently in different Baltic countries and while Germans from Estonia and Latvia left their countries voluntarily, the ones resettled later from Lithuania were in fact forced to leave and then kept in special Nazi camps. In fact they could be seen as the first German expellees ... --Lysy^talk 19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:wwii anniversary

You are more then welcome to fix such thing, I have no problem when my errors get pointed out and corrected :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

East Upper Silesia

Where could we redirect this? Or should we stub this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Eastern Upper Silesia. Any thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after WWII

Hi, well I did that because I knew it would catch everyone's attention, which it obviously did. A fact tag would not be of any help since it isn't really something we need a "fact" for, so tagging it would be pointless. Having weird sentences like the one in question, which is hardly a sentence to begin with, does little to help wikipedia's credibility. I don't even know how to fix it. Aha, greetings from the south, from Saxon-Switzerland.--Npovshark (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the constructive edits at Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk). I think it looks pretty good now and about as "consensus" as it can get.radek (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust

User:Skäpperöd wrote: or that the situation of Poles in general should be described as Holocaust. Say, do you intend deleting the entire section on the Poles? --

User:Skäpperöd wrote: Holocaust has a clear meaning and clearly refers to the final solution od the Jeweish question. If some people want to evoke the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the nazis during WWII I think they can write an article devoted to this topic. --

Skäpperöd, Do you propose deleting the entire section on the Poles? ----Woogie10w (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Konnen Sie bitte, etwa deutschen Quellen von dem Holocaust emphelen?--Woogie10w (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Britannica

Whats up Doc, I own the CD version of the Britannica.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fun; you can feel young again, it reminds me of the time when I was a kid at the beach. I built a sandcastle and the next day the tide washed it away. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI cases

 Clerk note: When filing a new SPI case, it is vital that the case is filed under the name of the alleged MASTER account, rather than the suspected new sock. This ensures that we can track repeat offenders effectively. Mayalld (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion appreciated

[[1]] [[2]]

Thanks Skäpperöd--Jacurek (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrative division of Nazi Germany

Comments and edits appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Polish Children

FYI the issue was reopened by two persons today, lets see what happens regards.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:AN/I thread

No, problem. Yes, to bring the same case to the AE, wouldn't be good idea. User Woogie10w, promised not to make similar comments, which you listed. At this point, I keen to trust his word.

On other had, I was accused of "flaming and battleground creation" by one individual, but nothing new on that. On my part I suggest to stick to the formula, which was outline by Arbitration committee: Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally.. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Peterlewis

Dear Skäpperöd,

You have named Peterlewis in the Molobo's sockpuppet case. But, there is no evidence against him. I think his name should be removed from the case. AdjustShift (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Police

Splitting up the history into "German town", "Polish and Soviet town" etc. is simply original research. A clean up tag does not mean that the usual rules on OR and POV are suspended.radek (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources which refer to it as "Polish and Soviet town"?radek (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kołobrzeg

I've filed a 3RR vio report [3], particularly since you've been unwilling to discuss any of the massive changes you're trying to implement in the article.radek (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Help is Needed

Hi Petra, could you please take a look at the article Ostsiedlung, it needs the attention of an expert on the German Middle Ages--170.170.59.138 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Skäpperöd,

Good to see you saved from a little block that could have happened. I just want to say few words here if I can. You are a good editor in my opinion and I enjoyed working with you in the past but please be more understanding while editing Poland related articles especially about history, territorial changes etc. Polish editors are soooo sensitive to those subjects especially when German editor is editing. They are not anti-German or anything like that, they are just historically sensitive. 20th century history of Poland was very tragic and Nazi Germany was a key contributor to this tragedy. This is why you may often find objections from Polish editors while editing with a German point of view but if you tone back that POV just a little there will be no problems, I know that. I'm sure you understand...Looking forward working with you in the future.--Jacurek (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I also hope that you will be able to mend fences with the other editors, including myself. Jörg Jarnut, Peter Johanek, Die Frühgeschichte der europäischen Stadt im 11. Jahrhundert, Köln-Weimar-Wien 1998 is available here in the New York Public Library. I plan to read it when I get away from my work. I have a keen interest in the history of Prussia since my ancestors came from this region. Looking forward working with you in the future Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange edit summary

What exactly did you mean by "You neither live there nor do you know about the subject, please at least be polite."? and whom where you referring to? How do you know?radek (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Duchy of Słupsk/Stolp

I disagree. The entity may not be a real duchy, but it is notable: [4], [5], [6], particularly in Polish historiography: [7]. See also German works on Fürstentum Stolp and Herzogtum Stolp (I'd like to know what is a Fürstentum and how it differs from Herzogtum?). I would support including your arguments on how this Duchy was not really a duchy in the article, perhaps even renaming it if we can find a better name. But I think the article is notable and I suggest to continue this discussion on article's talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Danzig pronounciation

Olessi has not been active on wikipedia since September 2008, but from our past cooperations I still have his talk page watchlisted and might be able to answer your question.

The suffix "-ig" as in Danzig is pronounced differently in German. Standard High German requires it to be pronounced the way it is in the .ogg file, i.e. "-ig" as it is spelled. And there are many people actually pronouncing it this way. On the other hand, in the colloquial German of the North, an "-ig" suffix is often pronounced "-ich" just as you said. In the South, the "-ig" suffix is pronounced more like "-ish", in the Southeast the "i" is even dropped entirely so you get only a "-sh". But there are also regions where it is pronounced "-ig" in colloquial use also. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification. This raises two further questions:

1. The IPA pronunciation at the Gdańsk article doesn't match the recording: it has Danzig as [ˈdantsɪç] ("-ich"), not [ˈdantsɪɡ] ("-ig"). Which one should be used at the recording and the article? that depends on:
2. What do the actual German inhabitants of Gdansk/Danzig actually say? One would expect colloquial North German (and very brief Internet research seems to confirm this: see this Nazi propaganda film, "Danzig" is pronounced at 1:02) but can this be confirmed?

Perhaps I'll ask on the article talk page. Thanks a lot though. --Wikiacc (¶) 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

German article

Dear Skäpperöd,

I'm working on a bio of a German politician. Can you help me with translation? AdjustShift (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait for 5 minutes. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started the bio of Gerhard Jahn. Here are German links:[8][9][10]. AdjustShift (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you develop the bio using the German links? It may qualify for DYK. AdjustShift (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK = Wikipedia:Did you know. AdjustShift (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you translate this source? You also inserted:

Jahn was founding chairman of the German-Israeli Society (Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft) in 1966, and president of the German Lessee Union (Deutscher Mieterbund) from 1979 to 1995.

In which source the info is given? AdjustShift (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is his full name Geburtstag Gerhard Jahn? See [11]. AdjustShift (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha. AdjustShift (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Translate: Ergebnis der Suche nach. AdjustShift (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this website about? AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

According to de.wikipedia, it is "Literature by and about Gerhard Jahn".[12] I figured that out with the help of Google translator. AdjustShift (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

File:800px-Kriek Beer.jpg

A glass of beer for you. Enjoy!

What should be the title for this? This is a source for the sentense: Jahn was founding chairman of the German-Israeli Society (Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft) in 1966. The title I have inserted is "Die Geschichte Der Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft". Is that ok? AdjustShift (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See "References" and "External links". Are the titles ok? Is "Literature by and about Gerhard Jahn" ok? AdjustShift (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Translate: 1) DIE GESCHICHTE DER DEUTSCH-ISRAELISCHEN GESELLSCHAFT 2) Gründung

I'm asking you to translate too many words. Here is a glass of beer for you. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any question. I think we've built a soild biography today. I'll nominate it for DYK. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Skäpperöd, it is needless to add refs after every line in a paragraph, when the entire paragraph is supported by one ref. In this case, the two statements are supported by one ref. So, there is no need to add two refs. AdjustShift (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Img caption Polish Corridor

Hi Skäpperöd, I replied on the page talk. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)